Judge: Hobby Lobby Decision Means Polygamous Sect Member Can Refuse To Testify In Child Labor Case

[avebury]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/16/3568063/hobby-lobby-child-labor/

Citing Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court’s decision last June holding that the religious objections of a business’ owners could trump federal rules requiring that business to include birth control coverage in its health plan, a federal judge in Utah held last week that a member of a polygamist religious sect could refuse to testify in a federal investigation into alleged violations of child labor laws because he objects to testifying on religious grounds.'

---

The federal child labor investigation arose from a CNN report investigating claims that Jeffs “ordered all schools closed for a week so children could go to work picking pecans off trees at a private ranch” in Utah. The report included video of “hundreds of children, many of them very small” working on the ranch. When the reporters arrived, CNN also caught video of the FLDS children fleeing the cameras.

Yet, according to an order signed by Judge David Sam, a Reagan appointee to a trial court in Utah, the federal officials investigating this alleged violation of child labor laws will not be able to require an FLDS member named Vernon Steed to provide information that could aid the investigation because Steed objects to giving certain testimony on religious grounds. Steed claims that he’s made “religious vows ‘not to discuss matters related to the internal affairs or organization of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.’” According to Judge Sam’s opinion, that’s enough to exempt him from providing the testimony he does not want to give.

Before Hobby Lobby, it’s unlikely that Steed’s claim would prevail. Although a federal law offers fairly robust protections for religious liberty, this law only applies when the federal government “substantially burden[s] a person’s exercise of religion.” Hobby Lobby, however, largely wrote the word “substantially” out of this law.” The Hobby Lobby plaintiffs, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court, “sincerely believe that providing the insurance coverage demanded by the HHS regulations lies on the forbidden side of the line, and it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial.”

Similarly, Judge Sam concludes based on a single paragraph of analysis that the federal government’s efforts to obtain Steed’s testimony is a “substantial” burden on his faith. The government “has placed substantial pressure on Mr. Steed to engage in conduct contrary to his religious belief because [it] seeks to compel that conduct by court order and imposition of sanctions if he refuses to answer [] questions regarding the internal affairs and organization of the FLDS Church.” That, according to Sam, is forbidden.

-------

And so the slippery slope begins.

[n2doc]

1. Some future court is going to have to overturn the HL case

Otherwise we will not have any way of enforcing laws in this country. Gawd Uber Alles. The ultimate get out of Jail free card.

[joshdawg]

3. Not only the HL case,

but also the Citizens United farce.

[rurallib]

4. yep - Ginsburg was so right.

[hifiguy]

30. I can't recall when she hasn't been right.

[hifiguy]

28. Indeed. I was recently at a Continuing Legal Education class

on the last SCOTUS term and the former CJ of the Minnesota Supreme Court observed that Hobby Lobby was a potential Pandora's Box of unintended consequences. Now the buzzards are starting to come home to roost.

It will be overruled and junked at some point for the reason set forth in your post. When, who knows?

[Omaha Steve]

2. Isn't young child labor the same as child abuse

Closed school to work them. The SCOTUS takes us back almost 100 years.

[mindwalker_i]

21. Not if someone has a "deeply held belief" that it's ok

I have a deeply held belief that Scalia should get kicked in the nuts every day.

[KamaAina]

27. You'd need Phil Dawson to do that

the 49ers' kicker is among the most accurate in the NFL. He might actually be able to hit them.

[hifiguy]

29. Make that every

HOUR. And Uncle Ruckus, too.

[Ikonoklast]

5. Paying taxes that go directly into the pockets of war profiteers is against my religion.

The government is interfering with free right to practice my religion by forcing me to give money to arms manufacturers, with the government acting as their agent.

[toby jo]

7. Mine too.

Been wondering if any Buddhists will take this up. I figure not likely, but there are grounds there.

[politicat]

13. Mine, too. Quaker here.

Sounds like it's time to get the peace churches and the Buddhists to set up an escrow fund and go tax protest. (I know the peace churches had one during Vietnam, to go along with conscientious objection.)

[The Magistrate]

6. My Surprise At This Turn Of Events, Ma'am

Is equaled only by that I experience when, early in the morning, I look to the east and see the sun rising into the sky....

I hope every appellate level sustains this, just so the freaks on the Supreme Court pretty well have to take it.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. The absurdity of the 'Hobby Lobby' decision is astounding.

[theHandpuppet]

16. Yet there were some here...

... who tried to contend that we were making a big deal out of nothing.

[asjr]

9. Absolutely Unbelievable. It is

happening almost on a regular basis that we need not worry about Islamism. We need to watch out because the SCOTUS will have all of us in the fields picking nuts!

[TRoN33]

10. Hobby Lobby's Supreme Court decision is the beginning of the...

Decline of America as we know it. America will not survive after year 2100, I guarantee that unless we can put reverse to this disastrous decision, eliminate Reaganomics, and tax the hell out of corporations.

[msanthrope]

11. Good. Make the idiot Supremes narrow Hobby Lobby. nt

[ProfessorGAC]

12. How Do Do That Ms?

It applies to religious freedoms but only with regard to birth control? Don't know how they can square that.

They can't say only if it's mainstream religions. That's worse.

I think this is at the point where it may require and amendment that specifies that religious freedom does not apply where the impact does measurable harm to others.

[Volaris]

14. The only question that THEN requires answering is, Who gets to determine the definition of 'harm'...

Not saying I don't agree with you, I do indeed. But that's the question the religious lunatics will want answered, and I would bet good money their answer WONT be "the damned liberal evil secular Muslim communist Gubmint."

[ProfessorGAC]

18. That's My Point, I Think

I don't know how they can narrow the decision they've made. I think that horse has left the barn.

The nature of the HL decision is such that it pins them to it. I don't know how they can make it narrower because it was rooted in 1st amendment freedom of religion. Don't know how they take that back.

[The Magistrate]

23. The Only Way It Could Be Revisited, Sir

Would be to alter the standard of 'sincere belief' being enough to establish that a substantial burden existed. In the case, the things the plaintiffs 'sincerely believed' were false to facts established by science concerning the mechanism of fertilization and developing pregnancy. It would perhaps be possible to rule that a factual basis, not a belief basis, be required for determining if an undue burden existed.

Not sure how that would effect this ruling, though. It is a fact that he will break a tenet of his religion if he testifies, just as a Catholic priest would if he appeared in court to say the defendant had indeed, in partaking of the Sacrament of Confession, acknowledged committing the crime and received absolution and penance.

[MohRokTah]

20. All it would take is repeal of the RRFA

They cited the RFRA in the Hobby Lobby decision. If the RFRA is repealed, Hobby Lobby goes away.

OF course, that's not going to happen so long as Republicans control Congress.

[bullwinkle428]

15. I'm sure Scalia thoughtfully pondered over all of the potential implications

of this decision before he ruled on it.

[theHandpuppet]

17. Oh, it started down that slippery slope immediately after the ruling

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11384267
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11384413

[Initech]

19. So will SCOTUS vote in favor of child labor?

Every day more and more the idea of becoming an ex-patriot is sounding better and better. Fuck this religious exemption bullshit.

[bettyellen]

22. I can imagine Scientologists creating huge issues too. They already get away with so much abuse as

it is. Totally messed up.

[Jim Lane]

24. The law is actually for a balancing test

When someone asserts a religious exemption from a law of general applicability, the test is to balance any substantial burden on the individual's exercise of freedom of religion versus the governmental interest in enforcement.

For example, here are two cases about what people wear on specific occasions:
* Man being sworn in as City Council member or some other municipal office professes to worship Flying Spaghetti Monster and wants to wear a colander on his head at the ceremony.
* Muslim woman being photographed for her driver's license says her religious views don't allow her to expose herself to men outside her immediate family, so she wants to wear a veil. Her driver's license photo would show only her eyes peeking out.

These arose before Hobby Lobby. The outcomes were that the Pastafarian gets to wear his colander but the Muslim woman can't get a driver's license. I'm confident that the results would be the same even after Hobby Lobby.

When you consider cases like these, it's clear that neither absolute position makes any sense. If you argue that a stated religious belief should "never" or "always" lead to an exemption, then you have to say that one of these cases should come out differently.

One problem is that this balancing is inherently subjective. An obvious possibility is that the five Catholic men in the Hobby Lobby majority were especially inclined to attached high weight to an asserted objection to contraception and to attach low weight to women's reproductive freedom. Nevertheless, the subjectivity is a necessary evil. If you disagree, explain to me what supposedly objective rule would produce sensible results in all cases.

In the particular case in the OP, I think most judges would consider the government's interest in obtaining testimony about possible crimes to be a very strong one. On that basis, I'll predict that the ultimate outcome (assuming there's an appeal) will be against the asserted exemption based on free exercise of religion.

[LiberalAndProud]

25. I'll bet you think that's accidental.

I believe that the SCOTUS decision was exactly to ensure that religious beliefs will always trump governmental edicts. It *intentionally* undermined governmental authority.

[KamaAina]

26. I thought Hobby Lobotomy only applied to corporations?

Or are people corporations now?